[HPforGrownups] Did Dumbledore ultimately redeem himself?

[foxmoth at qnet.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 192903

Bart:
    Now, that brings up a couple of interesting questions. However, it is pretty well established that DD does not tell lies unless he has a strong reason for doing so. Being brought up by the Dursley's resulted in an empathy on the part of Harry for the persecuted, but people who are brought up with abusers more often repeat the pattern of abuse, with a "Now that I have power, I'm going to get revenge!" 

 Pippin:
 A high proportion of abusers were abused themselves, but that does not mean that most abused children become abusive. The most commonly quoted estimate is only about a third. Far too many, of course, but maybe an acceptable risk  if there is a far better chance than one in three that  Harry is going to be murdered otherwise. 
 

 Does JKR do enough to show us this is so?
 

 "The Art of War" says the best battle is the one you don't have to fight. Good advice for a general, but a problem for the novelist who has to depict one. Like Sherlock Holmes' dog who did nothing in the night, the power of the bond of blood had to be shown by what *doesn't* happen. This is a magic that never fell asleep on guard, couldn't be stolen or seduced or subverted and was never fooled by tricks or disguises. It was also going to wear off the day Harry turned 17. So Voldemort, who had all the time in the world at his disposal, was given  ample reason not to  test it, and risk being humiliated once again.
 

 It wouldn't have done much good if the Longbottoms had taken Harry in, since they didn't last long -- it would only have meant Harry losing another family who loved him. But IMO it smacks of anti-Muggle bias to think that if Dumbledore wanted a truly horrible family to raise Harry, he couldn't have found one in the Wizarding World. The Gaunts and the Snapes are proof enough of that. 
 

 The "pampered prince" comment has to be understood in the light of Dumbledore's own experience, IMO. Adult adulation and extraordinary abilities turned Dumbledore's head, made him think he was fit to rule the wizarding world at the age of eighteen. He's not talking about a mere absence of trauma. After all, Dumbledore expects just as much loyalty from Hermione and Ron as he does from Harry, and they don't have abusive backgrounds. 
 

 Harry is a super-altruist, but I question whether Dumbledore thought he needed to make him one or even thought that he could. In our world, Harry would probably be the kind who  donates one of his kidneys to a stranger. It's true that some such people come from deprived backgrounds and say they don't want others to suffer as they did -- but some come from comfortable lives  and explain their generosity by  saying it's only fair that they share their good fortune with the world. 
 

 Only such a person could have performed the magic Harry used to provide blanket protection against Voldemort in the battle of Hogwarts. But the war still could have been won without that -- it would have been grimmer, and longer, but IMO, at the outset the only thing that Dumbledore needed Harry to do was locate the horcrux(es) and allow the one within him to be destroyed, even if it cost his life.  
 

 It still seems like a lot to ask -- but only in the context of popular fiction. 
  
 Only in popular fiction can soldiers expect that a commander who loves them would be able to save them all, if only they are the chosen ones, brave enough and true.
 

 Harry, whose expectations about war may have been formed by Megaman cartoons and who never paid much attention in History of Magic, discovers  this as a nasty shock. But in our world, as in the Potterverse, 
 military commanders know they must win the love of their troops to be effective, and yet it is their duty to send those troops into battle and death. The commanders may not know which of their soldiers are going to die, but if they did know, they would still have to love them and  send them to their doom. 
 

 Dumbledore actually told Harry that it might take someone who was willing to fight what seemed to be a losing battle in order to keep Voldemort from coming back. But Harry wanted to think that he'd been chosen because he'd demonstrated an ability to survive, not because his life was going to be forfeit anyway. Dumbledore let him think so, and for that, indeed, Dumbledore was responsible. But he did make sure that Harry would know the truth before he faced Voldemort in the end. 
 


 There's this theory that Dumbledore  chose the Dursleys because he wanted to fool Harry into thinking the wizarding world was some kind of utopia in order to get him to fight for it. Again, that only makes sense in the context of fantasy fiction.  Do I need to point out that  no soldiers in the history of the world have ever given their lives for an actual existing utopia?
  

 

 Pippin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20160101/801394bf/attachment.html>